LCV Safety Performance Report - Alberta · FINAL REPORT Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) Safety Performance in Alberta 1995 to 1998 John Woodrooffe Principal, Woodrooffe & Associates

FINAL REPORT

Long Combination Vehicle (LCV)Safety Performance in Alberta 1995 to 1998

John WoodrooffePrincipal, Woodrooffe & Associates

March 2001

Woodrooffe & Associates

The findings of this report do not represent the views of any individual, party ororganization that commissioned or contributed information to the analysis of theresults. The independent consulting team of Woodrooffe & Associates used thebest available data within the time and budget constraints. Woodrooffe &Associates as authors of this report are solely responsible for any errors, omissionsor conclusions. Readers are urged to fully understand any limitations of this studyas outlined in Section 2.2 Study Methodology and Approach and to exercise anycaution that may be warranted as a result of this methodology when using theresults.

March 2001 Final Report

i

© Woodrooffe & Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 11.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................. 11.2 PROJECT SCOPE........................................................................................................................... 31.3 PROVINCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS ....................................................................................... 4

2. SCOPE OF VEHICLE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................... 72.1 THE STUDY LOCATION................................................................................................................ 72.2 STUDY METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH..................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Method Used to Analyze Vehicle Road Safety Performance.............................................. 82.3 ERROR AND UNCERTAINTY DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 122.4 METHODOLOGICAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE COMPARATIVE USE OF THE STUDY TO U.S.RESEARCH......................................................................................................................................... 13

2.4.1 Method Used to Analyze Long Combination Vehicle Collisions ..................................... 14

3. ANALYSIS OF VEHICLE ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE.......................................... 14

4. ANALYSIS OF LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE COLLISIONS.................................. 194.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE COLLISIONS ................................... 194.2 PROBABLE FAULT LONG COMBINATION VEHICLES................................................................... 224.3 OVERTAKING MANEUVERS LONG COMBINATION VEHICLES..................................................... 224.4 ADVERSE CONDITIONS LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE COLLISIONS ......................................... 234.5 LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE COLLISIONS BY CONFIGURATION TYPE .................................... 244.6 COLLISIONS INVOLVING ROCKY MOUNTAIN DOUBLES............................................................. 24

4.6.1 Configuration ................................................................................................................... 254.6.2 Animal Collisions ............................................................................................................. 254.6.3 Adverse Conditions .......................................................................................................... 254.6.4 Road Class ....................................................................................................................... 26

4.7 COLLISIONS INVOLVING TURNPIKE DOUBLES ........................................................................... 264.7.1 Configuration ................................................................................................................... 274.7.2 Animal Collisions ............................................................................................................. 274.7.3 Adverse Conditions .......................................................................................................... 27

4.8 COLLISIONS INVOLVING TRIPLES .............................................................................................. 284.8.1 Configuration ................................................................................................................... 284.8.2 Animal Collisions ............................................................................................................. 294.8.3 Adverse Conditions .......................................................................................................... 29

4.9 SUMMARY OF LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE COLLISIONS ....................................................... 29


ii


ii

5. LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................... 315.1 VEHICLE LENGTH AND MASS .................................................................................................... 325.2 ADVERSE WEATHER RESTRICTIONS.......................................................................................... 335.3 SUMMARY OF LONG COMBINATION VEHICLE OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS....................... 34

6. SAFETY PERFORMANCE CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 34

7. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... I7.1 APPENDIX A: VEHICLE INVOLVEMENT BY COLLISION ................................................................ II7.2 APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC CONTROL SECTION................................................................................ VI7.3 APPENDIX C: THE DATA COLLECTION FORM FOR TRUCK COUNTS (1999 CCMTA SURVEY).VII7.4 APPENDIX D: ESTIMATED LCV MOVEMENTS ON SUB-NETWORK BY YEAR* ........................VIII7.5 APPENDIX E: CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE OPERATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT MOTORVEHICLES IN ALBERTA TRANSPORT ENGINEERING BRANCH............................................................. IX

7.5.1 Driver Requirements .........................................................................................................IX7.5.2 Operational Requirements .............................................................................................. XII7.5.3 Specific Conditions for Rocky Mountain Doubles ......................................................... XVI7.5.4 Specific Conditions for Triple Trailer Combinations ...................................................XVII7.5.5 Specific Conditions for Turnpike Doubles ...................................................................XVIII



iii

Executive Summary

Alberta Infrastructure’s Transportation Policy and Economic Analysis Branch commissionedWoodrooffe and Associates to undertake an in-depth review of Long Combination Vehicles(LCVs) in Alberta during the period 1995 to 1998. In addition, project funding was receivedfrom Western Economic Diversification Canada under the Canada-Alberta Western EconomicPartnership Agreement Program. The goals of this study are to:

� Determine road safety performance of commercial trucks including LCVs

� Determine the contributing factors to collisions involving LCVs

Long Combination Vehicles (LCVs) are truck and trailer combinations, consisting of a tractorwith two or three trailers, or semi-trailers, in which the number of trailers and/or the combinedlength of the combination exceeding the regular limit of 25 metres. The maximum weight ofLCVs is 62,500 kg with 8 axles. These vehicles have been operating on Alberta highways since1969 with the introduction of Triple Trailers (overall length 35 m). The two other LCVcombinations that operate in Alberta are the Rocky Mountain Doubles (31 m) and TurnpikeDoubles (38 m). All LCV equipment operates in Alberta under permits with strict safetyrequirements. They are generally restricted to travelling on 4-lane highways and subject todriver and vehicle operational restrictions. The LCV route or sub-network is roughly 3000 km inlength and consists of approximately 20% of the primary highway network.

The method used in this study to analyze the road safety performance is known as the “Collisionsby Vehicle Type” method. It is based upon the type of vehicle involved in an incident. In thisanalysis, “the vehicle involved in the collision” is the primary investigative factor therefore the“total” number of vehicles involved in the collisions is known. The collision exposure rateequation is as follows:

typehicleby that ve traveledkilometers Totalcollisionsin involved given type a of vehiclesofNumber typeby vehicle Collisions =

The vehicle types examined in this study were Unit Truck, Tractor Semi-Trailer, Multi Trailer,Rocky Mountain Double, Turnpike Doubles and Triples and Personal Vehicles. Vehicles notincluded in the analysis of the Long Combination Vehicles Safety Performance in Alberta 1995to 1998 study were motorcycles, bicycles, scooters, mopeds, buses (school, transit or intercity),recreational vehicles, emergency vehicles (ambulances, fire trucks), farm or constructionequipment and off-highway vehicles.



iv

Vehicle Road Safety Performance Findings:

Collision Rates by Vehicle Type(Within the Sub-Network 1995-98)

Per 100 million km traveled

Vehicle TypeCollision Rate

Error Estimate RangeEstimatedError Low Calculated

RateHigh

Unit Truck + 10% 168 187 206Tractor Semi + 10% 72 80 87Multi Trailer + 10% 93 104 114Rocky Mountain + 10% 9 10 11Turnpike Doubles + 10% 18 20 22Triples + 10% 15 17 19Personal Vehicles + 10% 84 88 93Total Number of Vehicles + 10% 84 89 93

All LCV + 10% 14 16 17Table Notes (1): PDO stands for Property Damage Only collisions. (2): In this analysis, collisionsinvolving two or more vehicles of the same type will be counted as two or more incidents, that is, acollision involving three personal vehicles will be registered as three events. A collision involving twodifferent vehicle types will be registered as two events.

� LCVs were found to have the lowest collision rate of all vehicle classes, includingPersonal Vehicles. The vehicle safety performance analysis revealed that during thefour-year period 1995 to 1998, there were a total of 53 LCV reportable traffic collisionsinvolving LCV vehicles in the Province of Alberta. This represents less than 14 LCVvehicles involved in collisions per year. The sub-network accounted for 70% (37) andurban locations accounted for 30% (16) of the LCV collision incidents.

� Rocky Mountain Doubles were found to have the best safety performance of all LCVconfigurations. The performance of the Rocky Mountain Double was better than anyother vehicle even though they are permitted on a few 2-lane highways. Collisions withanimals accounted for 42% of the total number Rocky Mountain Double collisions. Ofthe animal collisions involving Rocky Mountain Doubles, 80% of the incidents occurredon 2-lane highways.



v

� The performance of Triple LCVs when configured as A-trains is only marginally betterthan Tractor Semi-Trailers. Of the 11 collisions involving Triples, including the urbanareas, it is probable that 27% involved configuration design. The configuration relatedperformance of Triples could be improved if they were configured as B-trains or C-trains,which have superior vehicle dynamic characteristics. Collisions occurring at a cityintersection within the urban areas accounted for 45% (5 out of 11) of all Triple LCVcollisions. Collisions on 4-lane divided highways accounted for 38% of the total.

Contributing Factors to LCV Collisions:

Contributing Factors to LCV Collisions in Alberta 1995 to 1998

Overall StudyResults

Sub-Network Urban Areas Frequency

53 Collisions 37 Collisions 16 CollisionsRoad surface Road Surface IntersectionAnimal Animal Road surfaceWeather Weather Configuration relatedIntersection Configuration WeatherConfiguration related Mechanical MechanicalMechanical Other Animal

High

Medium

LowNote: There may be more than one contributing factor to a collision.

� When analyzing the contributing factors to collisions the data revealed that adverseconditions (weather and road surface) were present in 42% of all LCV collisions.Adverse conditions (weather and road surface) were present in 67 % of the RockyMountain Double collisions, 43% of the total Turnpike Double collisions, and roadsurface factors in 27% of the total Triple LCV collisions.

� Alberta Infrastructure’s permit conditions governing the operation of LCVs was found tobe a vital influencing factor in the creation of a safe operating environment in Alberta.The effective conditions include, selective routing, restrictions on vehicle speed,restricted time of day operation, enhanced driver qualification requirements and operatingrestrictions for adverse road and weather conditions. The particular elements, includingroad surface factors, driver competence, and adverse weather conditions have been foundto be significant factors in collision causation.


1


1. INTRODUCTION1.1 BackgroundLong Combination Vehicles (LCVs)1 are truck and trailer combinations, consisting of a tractorwith two or three trailers, or semi-trailers, in which the number of trailers and/or the combinedlength of the combination exceed the regular limits of 25 metres. These vehicles have beenoperating on Alberta highways since 1969 with the introduction of Triple Trailers. Currently inAlberta, the maximum gross vehicle weight applicable to LCVs is 62,500 kilograms while themaximum configuration length is 37 metres (121.4 feet).

LCVs are further defined according to size, with three length classifications:

• Rocky Mountain Double- A combination vehicle consisting of a tractor, a 12.2 m (40 feet)to 15.2 m (53 foot) semi-trailer, and a shorter 7.3 m (24 feet) to 5.5 m (28 feet) semi-trailer.The total length does not exceed 31 m (102 feet). These vehicles are typically used whencargo considerations are governed by weight rather than the cubic capacity of the trailer.

• Turnpike Double- A tractor plus double trailers. Each trailer is between 12.2 m (40 feet)and 16.2 m (53 feet) long. The Turnpike Double is typically used for carrying cargo thatbenefits from the additional cubic capacity of the trailer arrangement.

• Triple Trailer- This combination consists of a tractor with three trailers of approximatelythe same length. The typical trailer length is approximately 7.3 m and 8.5 m (24 to 28 feet).The Triple Trailer is used for carrying cargo that benefits from the additional cubic capacityof the trailer arrangement or from the operational flexibility of having three smaller trailersthat can be easily redistributed as separate vehicle units at the point of origin and destination.

All LCVs operate in Alberta under permits with strict safety requirements and are generallyrestricted to travelling on 4-lane highways subject to driver and vehicle operational restrictions.An exception is the Rocky Mountain Double, which is permitted to travel on an expanded route.

Figure 1 illustrates common LCV configurations in comparison to standard configurations oftrucks used on roadways. In Alberta the overall length of LCVs varies from greater than 31 m(102 feet) to 37 m (121 feet).

1 Also known as Energy Efficient Motor Vehicles (EEMVs).



2

Figure 1. Illustration of Common LCV Configurationsand Standard Configurations

(Also referred to in the literature as EEMVs, Energy Efficient Motor Vehicles) ** Source: Road Management and Engineering Journal

Figure 2. Example of a Turnpike Double Combination(Photo Copyright Lloyd Ash: Used With Permission)



3

Figure 3. Example of a Rocky Mountain Double Configuration(Photo Copyright Lloyd Ash: Used With Permission)

1.2 Project ScopeAlberta Infrastructure’s Transportation Policy and Economic Analysis Branch commissionedWoodrooffe and Associates to undertake an in-depth review of Long Combination Vehicles(LCVs) in Alberta during the period 1995 to 1998. In addition, project funding was alsoreceived from Western Economic Diversification Canada under the Canada-Alberta WesternEconomic Partnership Agreement Program. As such, the findings of this report do notnecessarily represent the views of any individual, party or organization that commissioned orcontributed information to the analysis of the results. The independent research and consultingteam used the best available data within the time and budget constraints. Readers are urged tofully understand any limitations of this study as outlined in Section 2.2 Study Methodology andApproach and to exercise any caution that may be warranted as a result of this methodologywhen using the results.

The goals of this study are to:

� Determine road safety performance of commercial trucks including LCVs

� Determine the contributing factors to collisions involving LCVs



4

1.3 Provincial Vehicle RegistrationsWhen Alberta vehicle registrations are reviewed in Table 1 and Figures 4 to 7, it is observed thatthe total number of non-trucks has increased approximately 23% during the period 1987 to 1998.During the same time the total number of all truck configurations declined by 19%. This reflectsthe time period in which higher gross vehicle weights were introduced thereby reducing thenumber of trucks required to perform a given transport task.

Within the “truck” category, a significant decline has occurred in the number of 3 axle (smallstraight) trucks, while significant growth has taken place in the larger truck categories. Themajor change in the composition of trucks occurred in the 3 axles and 6 or more axleconfigurations. There was a 26% decline in 3 axles and an increase of 221% in 6 or more axlevehicles. The decline in the number of 3 axle wheels represents a significant shift in truck sizeand productivity in Alberta.

Table 1. Vehicle Registrations in Alberta 1987 to 1998Trucks (> 3,000 kg)Year Total

Vehicles 3 Axle 4,5 Axle 6+ Axle TotalNon Trucks

Total1987 1,741,899 245,058 15,447 2,547 263,052 1,478,8471988 1,757,361 235,012 16,502 3,189 254,703 1,502,6581989 1,788,739 230,834 17,751 3,926 252,511 1,536,2281990 1,839,815 226,824 18,287 4,719 249,830 1,589,9851991 1,857,699 214,489 18,720 5,103 238,312 1,619,3871992 1,875,212 201,291 18,890 5,045 225,226 1,649,9861993 1,878,707 191,692 18,988 5,446 216,126 1,662,5811994 1,910,612 187,995 20,165 6,584 214,744 1,695,8681995 1,935,076 185,114 21,646 7,551 214,311 1,720,7651996 1,934,863 178,913 22,029 7,751 208,693 1,726,1701997 1,962,789 178,730 22,324 7,923 208,977 1,753,8121998 2,038,687 181,734 24,216 8,174 214,124 1,824,563

Source: Alberta Infrastructure, Transportation Policy & Economic Analysis estimated from Alberta Registries –Motor Vehicles, based on registered GVW.

Fewer commercial vehicles in total demonstrate that increased truck weights and the use ofLCVs have reduced the number of trucks required to haul freight even though the economy hasbeen growing. The reason that fewer trucks are doing more work is that the potential capacity ofthe transportation system has been increased by size and weight policy initiatives including theuse of LCVs. The fact that fewer trucks are required to move the same amount of cargorepresents an important benefit particularly given that the carrying capacity of the trucking fleetreflects the growth of the population and the economy. Alberta vehicle registration informationis demonstrated graphically in Figures 4 through 7.



5

Motorized Vehicle Registrations in Alberta

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

2,250,000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

All Highway Use Motorized Vehicles

Source: Alberta Infrastructure, Transportation Policy & Economic Analysis estimated from Alberta Registries –based on registered GVW

Figure 4. History Of All Vehicle Registrations In Alberta

Personal Vehicle (<3,000 kg) Registrations in Alberta

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Personal Vehicles


Figure 5. History Of Personal Vehicle Registrations In Alberta



6

Large Truck (>3,000 kg) Registrations in Alberta

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

250,000

275,000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

All Trucks


Figure 6. History Of Large Truck Registrations In Alberta

Composition of Large Truck Registrations in Alberta

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

250,000

275,000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

3 Axle 4,5 Axle 6+ Axle


Figure 7. History Of Large Truck Registrations By Number Of Axles In Alberta



7

2. SCOPE OF VEHICLE OPERATIONS2.1 The Study LocationThe operation of LCVs in Alberta is restricted to specific routes or a sub-network within theentire provincial road and highway system. This is in recognition that the length of LCVsnormally exceeds the allowable overall length of 25 metres for truck-trailer combinations. Tofacilitate safe passing, Turnpike Double and Triple Trailer combinations are only allowed tooperate on 4-lane highways. The Rocky Mountain Double is the only LCV that can operate onall 4-lane highways and select 2-lane highways in the province (except for Highway 1A east ofCalgary, where Turnpike Doubles and Triples are also permitted).

Of the total provincial network of 13,776 km, this study focuses on the sub-network of 2,800 kmin which LCVs are permitted to operate. 2 All routes over which the largest LCV configurations(Turnpike Doubles and Triple Trailers), are permitted to operate, are included. That is, all 4-lanedivided highways in the province of Alberta plus those 2-lane highways where Rocky MountainDoubles may operate. The heavy line in Figure 8 illustrates the sub-network segments for whichtraffic volume information and collision data was evaluated in this study by the consulting team.

Figure 8. LCV Highway Segments in Alberta

2Out of the total provincial road system of 13,776 km, this study focused on the sub-network of approximately 2,800km in which LCVs are permitted to operate. LCV vehicles can travel at 100 or 110 km/hr. All routes over which thelargest LCV configurations (Turnpike Doubles and Triple Trailers), are permitted to operate, were included. That is,all 4-lane divided highways in the province of Alberta plus those 2-lane highways where Rocky Mountain Doublesmay operate.



8

The specific links evaluated in this project are described in table 2.

Table 2. Road Segments Defining the Sub-NetworkArea Highway Description # of LanesArea 1 Hwy 4 Coutts to Lethbridge 4Area 2 Hwy 3 Crowsnest Pass to Jct Hwy 2 2Area 3 Hwy 3 Jct Hwy 2 to Lethbridge 4

Hwy 2 Jct Hwy 3 to Calgary 4Hwy 1 Banff Park Gates to Calgary 4

Area 4 Hwy 1 Calgary to Alberta/Saskatchewan border 4Area 5 Hwy 2 Calgary to Red Deer 4Area 6 Hwy 2 Red Deer to Edmonton 4Area 7 Hwy 16 Jasper Park Gates to Edmonton 4 (mostly)Area 8 Hwy 16 Edmonton to Alberta/Saskatchewan border 4Area 9 Hwy 43 Alberta/BC border to Jct Hwy 16 2 + 4Area 10 Hwy 49 Jct Hwy 43 to Jct Hwy 2 2

Hwy 2 Jct Hwy 49 to Jct Hwy 35 2Hwy 35 Jct Hwy 2 to Alberta/NWT border 2

2.2 Study Methodology and Approach2.2.1 Method Used to Analyze Vehicle Road Safety PerformanceThere are two separate methods that may be used to analyze collision data. The collision raterelationships are defined in the following equations:

Equation A

typehicleby that ve traveledkilometers Total typeclegiven vehi a involving collisions ofNumber collisionby t involvemen Vehicle =

Equation B

typehicleby that ve traveledkilometers Totalcollisionsin involved given type a of vehiclesofNumber typeby vehicleCollision =

Equation A is based upon vehicle involvement by collision. In this analysis, “the collision” isthe primary investigative factor and is used in the numerator of the collision rate equation. Thenumber of collisions is determined and the vehicle types involved in the collision are recorded.



9

When examining vehicle involvement, a collision involving two vehicles of the same type wouldonly register one vehicle type. Therefore if there were 100 collisions involving 200 privatevehicles, the number of collisions involving private vehicles would be recorded as 100. Theanalysis method is known as “Vehicle Involvement by Collision.”

Equation B is the second method, which can be used to analyze the data. It is based upon thetype of vehicle involved in an incident. In this analysis, “the vehicle involved in the collision” isthe primary investigative factor therefore the “total” number of vehicles involved in thecollisions is known. Thus, the total number of vehicles involved is used in the numerator of thisform of the collision exposure rate equation. When examining vehicle involvement, the numbersof all vehicles involved in the collisions are recorded. If there are 100 collisions involving 200private vehicles, the number of vehicles involved in the collisions will be counted as 200. Thismethod is known as “Collisions by Vehicle Type.”

The results from these separate methods differ substantially and misunderstanding thedefinitions can have a deleterious effect on data interpretation. The “Vehicle Involvementby Collision” method is useful for collision-based analysis. Questions such as “howmany collisions have occurred?” and “where and when did they occur?” are well servedby this method.

When examining vehicle involvement in collisions, the “Collision by Vehicle Type” method ofanalysis is preferred. This method fully accounts for the “total” number of vehicles involved incollisions and therefore accurately represents involvement rates for the various vehicle types.Based on the above reasons, this study used the “Collisions by Vehicle Type” analysis methodbecause it more faithfully represents the actual collision history of all vehicles of each vehicleclass. For completeness, Appendix A includes the results of the analysis using the alternativeapproach.

The vehicle type definitions used to analyze the collision exposure analysis were derived fromthe Alberta Collision Report Form and electronic database provided by Alberta Infrastructure. 3

The term “object identification” refers to a box on the Collision Report Form in which the typeof vehicle involved in the collision is identified. The vehicle types examined in this study wereas follows:

• Unit Truck- This was defined as object identification 04. Any unit truck with atrailer attached was eliminated from the data set.

• Tractor Semi-Trailer- This was defined as “truck tractor” (object identification 05)plus “large single trailer (attachments 01). That is, all vehicles in data set having“truck tractor” or “truck >4500 kg” and one trailer.

3 Information on Alberta Infrastructure Traffic Safety Services can be obtained from http://www.infras.gov.ab.ca/



10

• Multi Trailer- This means double trailer. These were identified as “truck tractor”(object identification 05) plus “large double trailer” (attachments 02). That is, allvehicles in data set having “truck tractor” or “truck >4500 kg” and two trailers minusall Turnpike Doubles and Rocky Mountain Doubles.

• Rocky Mountain Double, Turnpike Doubles and Triples- These were identifiedby collision case numbers and were not double counted in the data set. The CollisionReport Forms for the LCV vehicle types were individually examined by theconsultant. In addition, interviews were undertaken to verify the vehicle type.

• Personal Vehicles- These include the following:Passenger cars (object identification 01)Pick-up/Van <4500kg (object identification 02)Mini-Van/MPV (object identification 03)

Vehicles not included in the analysis of the Long Combination Vehicles Safety Performance inAlberta 1995 to 1998 study were motorcycles, bicycles, scooters, mopeds, buses (school, transitor intercity), recreational vehicles, emergency vehicles (ambulances, fire trucks), farm orconstruction equipment and off-highway vehicles.

Collision exposure rate equations A and B both use the same numbers in the denominator of theformula for calculating the distance-traveled for each vehicle type. The consulting teamestimated the distance-traveled for each vehicle type using traffic volume statistics and the lengthof the individual highway segments in the following manner.

Alberta Infrastructure provided the consultant with highway traffic count statistics (for allhighway segments in the sub-network) for each of the years 1995 to 1998. These statisticscontain the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts for all vehicles traveling on eachhighway route in either direction. The AADT statistics are given as the daily weighted averagesover the entire Highways Control Sections and Traffic Control Sections. The (weighted) dailyaverage traffic volume for a traffic control section is estimated using the travel distances atmonitored sites within the traffic control section. The (weighted) daily average vehicleclassification for a traffic control section is estimated using the cumulative travel distances andhistorical classification from manual traffic counts, at monitored sites within the traffic controlsection.4

The AADT statistics measure traffic volumes for the following vehicle types: personal vehicle,recreational vehicle, buses, single unit trucks and tractor-trailer trucks. Thus, it was possible toestimate the total volume for the LCV sub-network.

4 Details on Alberta’s Traffic Volumes, Vehicle Classification, and Travel statistics can be obtained from theAlberta Infrastructure Internet site http://aicm/Content/doctype181/production/hnp004.htm



11

In order to estimate the volume of commercial vehicles and LCVs using the sub-networkhighway an additional vehicle survey was required. The LCV vehicle mix on the sub-networkwas determined from the 1999 Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA)National Road Survey. Hourly traffic counts were maintained, on a continuous basis, during theweek of July 13-19th. Figure 9 indicates the truck weigh scales that were used at the surveylocations. The Data Collection Form for Truck Counts is located in the Appendix C.The total traffic volume by vehicle type was developed by generating estimates of travel distancefor each class of vehicle on the sub-network. The information was used to determine the LCVcollision exposure rate relative to other vehicles (as detailed in Section 3 of this report). Itincluded all Turnpike and Triple routes and the expanded Rocky Mountain Double routes.The routes analyzed are representative of the various highway segments found in Alberta. Fromthis information, the total distance-traveled by each vehicle type was determined and is used asthe denominator in both collision exposure rate equations.

Appendix D includes the LCV vehicle classification percentages that were used to balance thetotal traffic statistics, traffic estimates by highway section, and vehicle type for the LCV sub-network as generated by the information collected by Alberta Infrastructure from the HighwayControl Sections.

Figure 9. Weigh Scale Locations



12

Detailed analysis of collision rates was restricted to the sub-network, given the difficulty inresolving the collisions per kilometres traveled, by vehicle type, within an urban area, whichwould be essential for comparative purposes. Therefore, urban LCV collisions were consideredonly in the detailed case-by-case analysis of contributing factors to LCV collisions. Thisinformation is detailed in Section 4 of this report.

When comparing exposure levels amongst the different vehicle types from within this study it isimportant to note that the volume of traffic and the distance-traveled by each vehicle type isbased on the total traffic volume as indicated by each of the Control Sections (as defined byAlberta Infrastructure) on the highway. The method used to calculate the vehicle distance byLCVs recognized the time of day operating restrictions on LCV use. Thus, daily traffic countvolumes were adjusted to reflect the fact that they could not operate 365 days of the year.

For a given section of highway there are one or more Control Sections used to measure trafficvolume. Each Control Section has one or more Traffic Control Sections. A Traffic ControlSection is a portion of roadway having similar characteristics. These occur at intersections ofroads along a highway Control Section and are used to record the turning movements of vehiclesentering or leaving a portion of highway. They act as additional control points for measuring thetraffic volume on the respective roads and for classifying vehicles. Appendix B illustrates atypical highway control section that is used to generate the AADT traffic volume counts on thesub-network.

Table 3 summarizes the control sections used in this study to determine total traffic volume anddistance-traveled by each vehicle type. It is important to note that the average distance betweenControl Sections was less than 40 km and the distance between Traffic Control Sections wasapproximately 12 km.

Table 3: Alberta LCV Sub-Network Highway Control SectionsDescription Kilometres

Total kilometres of highway on LCV sub-network 2,830Number of Control Sections in sub-network* 73Average kilometres between Control Sections in sub-network 38.0Number of Traffic Control Sections in sub-network 219Average Kilometres between Traffic Control Sections in sub-network 12.3

*Note: includes the highway sections in the National Parks that are part of the sub-network

2.3 Error and Uncertainty DiscussionThe estimated accuracy for LCV activity applicable for the higher traffic volume links (Calgary-Edmonton corridor, Trans-Canada, Yellowhead) would be within ± 2 or ± 3 percent. Theaccuracy of LCV activity on individual links for the rest of the sub-network would show greateruncertainty, perhaps ± 10 percent due to sample size factors cited. There are statistical samplingconsiderations required when using roadside commercial trucking surveys to estimate annualmovements of vehicle populations.



13

These considerations are more pronounced for small samples such as “one day roadside surveys”and “low volume route linkages,” where the observed variances in samples point to a significantuncertainty in the overall magnitude of the population being sampled. This being recognized, itis noted in Appendix B1 that “most” of the LCV activity sampled for the province of Albertaoccurs on Highway 2 between Calgary and Edmonton as well as on the Yellowhead Corridor andTrans Canada Highway Corridor. For these routes, the “sampling frequency” associated withmeasurement of AADT values coupled with the “cross checks” from vehicle classificationstudies, “weigh in motion sampling” and “national parks gate screen counts,” enableconsiderably better precision in our estimates. The quality of vehicle classification informationwas maximized by using data from the National Road Survey which was based on a 7 day, 24hour sample.

The other area of “statistical” uncertainty may relate to “seasonality” of activity, however thistype of traffic variation would be more applicable to other types of trucking (e.g. seasonalconstruction materials, agricultural commodities, etc.) than it would be for the goods known tobe moved in LCVs, which tends to be retail store freight, including groceries. Based on theabove considerations the estimated error is +/- 10% for the data analyzed.

2.4 Methodological Factors Influencing the Comparative Use of the Study to U.S.ResearchThe United States Federal Highway Administration publishes its data based on the “VehicleInvolvement by Collision” method. For comparative purposes the data for this study has been re-analyzed in Appendix A using this method. There are other methodological differences that mayinfluence the comparative analysis of the U.S. collision rate statistics and the results of thisstudy.

These factors are related to the calculations of the distance-traveled variable. The method used inthis study for estimating exposure (vehicle distance-traveled is the denominator in the collisionrate equation) is also different than that used in the U.S. where the commodity based database isused to approximate the distance-traveled. This method can be successfully used in the U.S,because of their larger vehicle population. When comparing the collision rate from this Albertastudy it is important to note that U.S. calculations include vehicles in both urban and rural areawhereas this study only calculated the collision exposure rates for the non-urban areas. Thus, thesignificant difference must be considered in the interpretation of any results of this report withU.S. findings.

This study and the U.S. collision database both use police collision reports and not propertydamage reports as the data entry threshold; therefore there is no measurement error from thissource in the number of collisions by each of the vehicle types. To address concerns about therelatively small vehicle population in Alberta compared to the U.S. this study analyzed a four-year block of data from 1995 to 1998.



14

2.4.1 Method Used to Analyze Long Combination Vehicle CollisionsIn Section 4 (Analysis of Long Combination Vehicle Collisions), collision reports wereindividually reviewed by the independent consulting team and analyzed to determine thecontributing factors (i.e. overtaking maneuvers, adverse conditions and configuration related) tocollisions involving LCVs for the period 1995 to 1998. In addition, for fatal and personal injuryLCV collisions a review of “probable fault” was undertaken. There were no estimation errorsassociated with the analysis given the fact that this study reviewed all LCV collisions thatoccurred in Alberta during the four-year period.

3. Analysis of Vehicle Road Safety PerformanceFor the period of 1995 to 1998, there were a total of 53 reportable traffic collisions involvingLCVs in the Province of Alberta.5 This represents less than 14 collisions per year. Within thesub-network study area there were 37 LCV reportable traffic collisions (Table 4). The remaining16 collision incidents involving LCV vehicles occurred in urban locations. In reviewingcollisions in urban areas it is difficult to establish a basis for analyzing the collisions perkilometres traveled, by vehicle type, which is essential for comparative purposes. Therefore,urban LCV collisions are considered only in the analysis of LCV collisions by configurationtype.

Detailed analysis is restricted to the sub-network defined in section 2.1 Study Location. Itincludes all Turnpike and Triple routes and the expanded Rocky Mountain Double routes. Theseroutes are representative of the various highway sections found in the province.

5 The definition of an LCV collision used for this study is any collision where a police traffic accident report wascompleted. It is important to note that there may be some instances where a report was completed despite the lackof significant damage. For example, in one case a farm equipment vehicle slid on ice and touched a LCV resultingin no significant damage.



15

Table 4. Collisions by Vehicle Type Sub-Network 1995-98

Vehicle TypeTotal

Vehicles inCollisions

Fatal Injury PDOTotal Distance

Traveled(100 million Km)

Unit Truck 715 14 131 570 3.82Tractor Semi 918 38 251 629 11.54Multi Trailer 418 19 123 276 4.03Rocky Mountain 11 0 2 9 1.07Turnpike Doubles 20 2 5 13 1.19Triples 6 0 2 4 0.090Personal Vehicles 19,206 259 3,560 15,387 217.87Total Number of Vehicles 21,294 332 4,074 16,888 239.61

All LCV 37 2 9 26 2.34Note (1): PDO stands for Property Damage Only collisions

Note (2): In this analysis, collisions involving two or more vehicles of the same type will be counted as two or moreincidents, that is, a collision involving three personal vehicles will be registered as three events. A collisioninvolving two different vehicle types will be registered as two events.

On the sub-network there were a total of 21,294 vehicles involved in collisions during the four-year period 1995 to 1998. As shown in Table 4, there were 332 vehicles involved in fatalcollisions, 4,074 vehicles involved in injury collisions and 16,888 vehicles involved in ‘propertydamage only’ (PDO) collisions.

This data represents the total vehicles involved in collisions by distance-traveled for each vehicletype on the ten highway segments during the four-year period.

LCVs were involved in 37 incidents or approximately 9.25 incidents per year. Personal Vehicleswere involved in approximately 19,206 annual collision incidents. Based on these absolutemeasures, LCVs accounted for 0.17 % of all vehicles in collision incidents within the sub-network and Personal Vehicles accounted for 90% of all vehicles in collision incidents during theperiod 1995 to 1998.

Referring to the absolute number of collisions listed in Table 3, Tractor Semi-Trailers areinvolved in 28% more collisions than Unit Trucks but the total distance-traveled (exposure) byTractor Semi-Trailers is 3 times that of Unit Trucks. It is also noted that LCVs average 0.5 fatalcollisions per year compared with 65 fatal collisions for Personal Vehicles. In other words,LCVs on average are involved in a fatality once every two years within the sub-network area.6

Part of this low involvement rate is attributed to less vehicle exposure.

6 It is important to note that in a ‘fatal’ collision incident that may be more than one fatality. The Alberta TrafficCollision Statistics1999 reveal that for the period 1995 to 1998 the average number of people killed per ‘fatalcollision’ incident involving all vehicle types was 1.2 people. The average number of people killed per ‘fatalcollision’ incident involving only truck tractors was 1.3 people. This data represents the entire Alberta road network.



16

The study revealed that the LCVs accounted for less than one percent, i.e. 0.60%, 0.22% and0.15% of all vehicles in fatal, injury and PDO collisions respectively on the sub-network. Thefatal, injury and PDO collisions involvement in personal automobiles were approximately 78%,87% and 87%, respectively.

The Alberta Traffic Collisions Statistics 1998 and 1999 editions reveal that Personal Vehicleswere involved in 79% of fatal collisions and 91% of injury collisions when measured across theentire Alberta road network. This finding clearly indicates that Personal Vehicles were involvedin a smaller percentage of casualty collisions (fatal and injury) on the sub-network (82%) inwhich LCVs are permitted to operate than the general road network (91%). The urban area doeshowever present a higher risk to all vehicle types because of the large number of intersectingroadways, road access opportunities and high traffic density within the urban area. Thepercentage of commercial trucks involved in casualty collisions (fatal and injury) on the sub-network was 13.3% and 1.9% for the general Alberta road network.

To more objectively measure the relative performance of different vehicle classes, it is useful toconsider the variable “distance-traveled” by the subject vehicle class. By doing so, the relativesafety performance of vehicles can be compared in a meaningful way. Relative safetyperformance is expressed in events per 100,000,000 km travelled.Table 5 contains data showing the relative collision involvement of all of the vehicle classes onthe sub-network.

TABLE 5. COLLISION RATES BY VEHICLE TYPE(Within the Sub-Network 1995-98)

Per 100 million km traveledVehicle Type Total Vehicles

in Collisions Fatal Injury PDO

Unit Truck 187.19 3.67 34.30 149.23Tractor Semi 79.52 3.29 21.74 54.49Multi Trailer 103.70 4.71 30.52 68.47Rocky Mountain 10.31 0.00 1.87 8.43Turnpike Doubles 20.00 2.00 5.00 13.00Triples 16.87 1.69 4.22 10.96Personal Vehicles 88.15 1.19 16.34 70.62Total Number of Vehicles 88.87 1.39 17.00 70.48

All LCV 15.80 0.85 3.84 11.10Note (1): PDO stands for Property Damage Only collisions

Note (2): In this analysis, collisions involving two or more vehicles of the same type will be counted as two or moreincidents, that is, a collision involving three personal vehicles will be registered as three events. A collisioninvolving two different vehicle types will be registered as two events.



17

The findings show that LCVs have the lowest collision rate when compared with othercommercial vehicles in Alberta. When comparing the collision rate amongst truckconfigurations, it is noted that the smallest trucks and hence those with the shortest length andleast vehicle weight have the highest collision rates.7 When LCVs are considered as a group theyhave a collision rate that is 11.85 times lower than that of Unit Trucks.

On a distance-traveled basis, Personal Vehicles including passenger cars, mini vans and pickuptrucks, are involved in collisions 5.58 times more frequently than LCVs. Tractor-Semi vehiclescollision exposure rate is 5.03 times higher than that of LCVs.

Within the LCV class, Rocky Mountain Doubles have the lowest collision rate. The collisionrate for Turnpike Doubles is approximately 1.94 times higher than the Rocky Mountain Doubles.The Triple Trailer LCV collision rate is 1.64 times higher than the Rocky Mountain Doubles.

Despite the relative difference in involvement between the Rocky Mountain Double and theTriple Trailer LCV, the collision rate for Triples was found to be 4.71 times lower than commonTractor Semi-Trailers.

It is important to consider that this data is for collisions occurring on highways at highway speedand they do not include collisions within urban areas.

The above analysis is based on the figures contained in Table 5. However, as Section 2.2 StudyMethodology and Approach indicates, the results are subject to measurement errors arising fromstudy design and data limitations. As a result the collision exposure rates are best examined andinterpreted from the perspective of the relative range of values as revealed in Table 6.

7 As noted in section 2.2. Study Methodology, this comparison does not necessarily imply that the collision rate fornon–LCV truck configurations in higher than that experienced in other jurisdictions.



18

Table 6. Error Sensitivity of Collision Rate by Vehicle Type(Within the Sub-Network 1995-98)

Per 100 million km traveled

Vehicle TypeCollision Rate

Error Estimate RangeEstimatedError Low Calculated

RateHigh


All LCV + 10% 14 16 17Table Notes (1): PDO stands for Property Damage Only collisions. (2): In this analysis, collisionsinvolving two or more vehicles of the same type will be counted as two or more incidents, that is, acollision involving three personal vehicles will be registered as three events. A collision involving twodifferent vehicle types will be registered as two events.

Table 6 reveals that the relative ranking of collision rate is not sensitive to the study’smethodology and measurement error. In fact, in order for the collision rate rankings to change, asubstantial change in the number of collisions or the distanced-traveled would be required.

For example, assuming that the collision rate of the vehicle with the lower rate remainedconstant, the following events would need to occur before the collision rates of the two vehicleswould be equal.

Unit Truck compared to Tractor-Semi:Collisions reduced by more than 57.5%Distance-traveled increased by more than 235.4%

Tractor-Semi compared to LCVs:Collisions reduced by more than 79.2%Distance-traveled increased by more than 503.3%



19

4. Analysis of Long Combination Vehicle CollisionsTo better understand the factors contributing to LCV traffic collisions, a detailed analysis wasconducted for all LCV collisions to determine most probable cause, fault and the influence ofvehicle dynamic design factors that may have played a part in the collision. In addition, the LCVcollisions were examined to determine if vehicle length or configuration type were contributingfactors to the collision.

4.1 General Description of Long Combination Vehicle CollisionsWithin the Alberta road network there were 53 collisions involving LCVs, during the period1995 to 1998. Of this total, 3 were fatal collisions and 2 were within the sub-network, 26% (14)resulted in injury and 68% (36) involved property damage only. Of the 14 injury collisions, 13resulted in minor injuries (injuries not requiring hospital admission).

There was one LCV collision that involved a major injury. The injury occurred when thepassenger vehicle disobeyed a traffic signal and struck the lead trailer of an LCV. Propertydamage collisions tended to be relatively minor in nature. Of these property damage collisions25% were single vehicle incidents involving animals such as deer and moose. The remainingproperty damage collisions (75%) included single vehicle departures from the highway orcollisions with other vehicles or objects.

Table 7 reveals that sub-network accounted for 70% (37 out of 53) of the collisions during theperiod 1995 to 1998. Of this total, 2 were fatal collisions, 24% (9) resulted in injury and 70%(26) involved property damage only.

Table 7. LCV Collision DistributionCollisionsConfiguration Type

Sub-Network Urban TotalRocky Mountain Double 11 1 12Turnpike Double 20 10 30Triple 6 5 11Total 37 16 53

Note: The sub-network refers to the LCV Highway Segments referred to in Figure 6.

Table 7 also illustrates the absolute number of LCV vehicle configurations involved in eitherurban or non-urban (sub-network) collisions. For example, Rocky Mountain Doubles wereinvolved in approximately 30% of the sub-network incidents but only 6% of the urban collisions.



20

It should be noted that Triples were involved in approximately 8% of sub-network highwayincidents but over 31% of the urban collisions investigated.

To obtain more insight and discover possible trends, the details of the network and urbancollisions have been compiled in Table 8. All of the LCV collisions on the sub-networkoccurred on the open road. Almost all (88%) of the urban LCV collisions occurred atintersections where other vehicles disobeying traffic signals and were found to be responsible for29% of the urban LCV collisions. On average, road surface and weather conditions werepossible factors in 49% of all sub-network collisions and 31% of all urban collisions. Therewere only 2 reported cases of an LCV rear-ending another vehicle. Both of these collisionsinvolved Triples and both occurred at city intersections. Because of the small numbers, thiscould be a coincidence or it may indicate that brake timing is a factor with some Triples.



21

Table 8. LCV Collision Details for all Sub-network and Urban Collisions 1995-1998Configuration Sub-network Urban

RockyMountainDoubles

Total collisions = 11• 8 single vehicle collisions, 5 of which were

animal related and 3 were road surfacecondition related.

• 2 involved other vehicles.• 1 related to road construction.• All collisions occurred on the open road. 4

of the 5 animal collisions occurred on 2-lane roads.

• In total 8 of the collisions may be related toroad surface conditions.

Total collisions = 1• LCV sideswiped by a

vehicle where alcoholwas involved.

• Occurred at anintersection.

• No collisions wererelated to road surfacecondition.

TurnpikeDoubles

Total collisions = 20• 6 single vehicle collisions, 3 of which were

animal related, 2 were road conditionrelated and 1 was fatigue related.

• 14 involved other vehicles of which 6 wereroad condition related.

• 1 related to road construction.• All collisions occurred on the open road• All of the animal collisions occurred on 4-

lane divided roads.• In total 8 of the collisions may be related to

road surface conditions.

Total collisions = 10• 8 occurred at

intersections.• 8 involved errors by

other vehicles,including 3 disobeyedtraffic signals and 1improper turn.

• 2 were the fault of theLCV.

• In total 4 of thecollisions may berelated to roadconditions.

Triples

Total collisions = 6• 4 single vehicle collisions, 1 animal related,

2 were road condition related and 1 wasmechanical related (2 occurred on 2-laneroads).

• 2 involved other vehicles 1 of which wasroad condition related.

• All collisions occurred on the open road• The animal collision occurred on a 2-lane

road.• In total 2 of the collisions may be related to

road surface conditions.

Total collisions = 5• 5 occurred at

intersections.• 3 involved errors by

other vehicles including1 disobeyed trafficsignal.

• 2 were the fault of theLCV, both were rearend collisions.

• In total 1 of thecollisions may berelated to road surfaceconditions



22

4.2 Probable Fault Long Combination VehiclesFor the purposes of the study, probable fault was determined from the collision reportinformation and was verified by studying the particulars of every collision. In all collisionsinvolving wildlife or highway debris, the LCV was not considered to be at fault. Unusual eventssuch as an LCV trailer decoupling or a trailer of an LCV being overturned by wind wereassumed to be the fault of the LCV. In all other cases, the LCV was considered to be at faultwhen the investigating officer indicated that the LCV had not been driven properly.

The analysis determined that LCVs were not at fault in any of the fatal or major injury collisionswithin the entire network. Out of the total number of collisions involving LCVs three were fatal.

One fatal incident involved a pedestrian attempting to cross a 4-lane divided highway at night.The second fatal collision occurred when a passenger car entered a divided highway travelling inthe wrong direction. The third fatality occurred when a passenger car failed to stop at anintersection controlled by a flashing red light and collided with an LCV. In none of the fatalitycollisions would the LCV be considered at fault.

4.3 Overtaking Maneuvers Long Combination VehiclesThrough the use of a permit system, the shortest of the three types of LCVs, the 31 m RockyMountain Doubles, are the only ones allowed on some 2-lane highways. There were no reportedincidents involving LCVs on 2-lane undivided roads where vehicle overtaking was sighted as thecontributing factor in a collision. However, there were two incidents that occurred duringovertaking maneuvers on 4-lane divided roads. One case involved a Tractor Semi-Trailerovertaking an LCV. Snow blowing off the passing Tractor Semi Trailer obscured the vision of apassenger car, which then collided with the LCV. This is a common problem with large vehiclesoperating during the winter months. As the truck gains speed, aerodynamic forces disturb snowthat has accumulated on top of the trailer resulting in a localized whiteout, which can affectvehicles in the immediate traffic stream. The unexpected loss of vision can result in loss ofdirectional reference.

The second incident also occurred on a 4-lane divided highway and resulted in a Pickup Trucklosing control while being passed by an LCV. The collision report form indicated that the LCVwas driving properly and road surface factors were an issue. Loss of vehicle control on slipperyroads is a significant risk to any vehicle.

It is possible that factors such as wind pressure or reactive anxiety may have created the initialconditions that may have lead to loss of control, but if they did exist these factors wereundetected by the investigating officer. If these factors did indeed exist, it is unlikely that theyare related specifically to LCV characteristics. In other words, these influencing factors arecommon to all large trucks.



23

4.4 Adverse Conditions Long Combination Vehicle CollisionsThe LCV collision data displayed in Figure 10 indicates that a significant number (42%) ofcollisions occurred under “adverse conditions.”8 For the purpose of this report adverseconditions included “weather” related items such as high wind, fog, snow, sleet and rainconditions as well as “road surface” factors such as snow or ice covered roads. In addition, wetroads or poor road quality (loose gravel in construction zones) were also considered to beadverse road surface factors.

Adverse conditions (weather and road) were present in 67% of the Rocky Mountain Doublecollisions, 43% of the total Turnpike Double collisions, and road surface factors in 27% of thetotal Triple LCV collisions.

Figure 10. Percent of LCV collisions occurringunder adverse conditions (weather and road)

27

43

67

42

0

20

40

60

80

Triples TurnpikeDoubles

Rocky M.Doubles

All EEMV

The study results indicate that imposing restrictions on LCV movements during adverseconditions is an important part of Alberta Infrastructure’s LCV operating policy.

8 For the purposes of this report it is important to note that the definition of ‘adverse conditions’ (weather and roadsurface factors) used in this study is more extensive than that contained in Alberta Infrastructure’s LCV operatingPermit. There may be more than one contributing factor to a collision hence it is not always possible to quantify thepercentage attributable to a single factor such as weather or road surface condition.



24

4.5 Long Combination Vehicle Collisions by Configuration TypeIn Table 9, collision rates were determined by separating the collision data for each configurationtype and linking it to the exposure data from each survey section in the sub-network.

Table 9. Collision Rates by LCV ConfigurationLCV

ConfigurationSub-

Networkevents

Distance-Traveled

(million of km)

Total CollisionRate/100,000,000

kmRocky Mountain Double 11 106.695 10.31Turnpike Double 20 118.584 16.87Triple 6 8.948 67.05Note: The numbers of LCV collisions shown in this table represent the number of collisions that occurred on thesub-network studied.

With the LCV configuration and on the basis of the exposure analysis, the Rocky MountainDouble is the configuration least involved in collisions, the Turnpike Double configuration isapproximately 1.6 times more likely to be involved in a collision and the Triple configuration isapproximately 6.5 times more likely to be involved in an collision than Rocky MountainDoubles.

4.6 Collisions Involving Rocky Mountain DoublesTable 10 lists the contributing factors for the 12 incidents (sub-network and urban areas)involving Rocky Mountain Doubles that were identified on the collision report forms as factorsin the incident. The numbers contained in the table are small and generalizations based on thesenumbers may not provide reliable conclusions. The collision reports indicate that there were nocollisions attributed to mechanical failures. The remaining data appear to show that collisionswith animals occur more frequently on 2-lane highway roads than 4-lane highway roads. Thisfinding is consistent with the fact that the right of way on 2-lane roads is significantly smallerthan 4-lane roads resulting in a higher probability of animal crossing and low probability oftimely driver perception. Both of these conditions increase the probability of animal strikes on2-lane highways.

The contributing factor of weather, principally snow and wind occurred less frequently than roadsurface factors (icy, wet, and contaminated road surfaces) as a cause of collisions. Road surfacecondition is the most frequently occurring contributing factor for collisions involving RockyMountain Doubles.



25

Table 10. Collisions Involving Rocky Mountain Doubles 1995-1998Collision LocationContributing Factor

4-Lane 2-Lane Urban*Configuration related 1 0 0Animal 1 4 0Weather (visibility, wind) 1 2 0Road surface (icy, wet etc) 2 4 0Mechanical 0 0 0Other 0 0 1* Includes 2-lane access routesNote: There may be more than one contributing factor per collisionhence the columns are not to be added together

4.6.1 ConfigurationOf the 12 collisions, including urban areas, involving Rocky Mountain Doubles, only onecollision can be traced to configuration design. In this case the wind apparently blew over thelast trailer. This incident occurred on a 4-lane highway. Given the LCV permit conditionsregarding operating the vehicle during adverse weather conditions this may suggest that thevehicle should have been off the road. Such events are possible and there is no reason todiscount the influence of the wind particularly with respect to independent trailers. The “A”connection of the last trailer cannot produce any corrective roll movement as can the tractor-trailer 5th wheel coupling system. If this Rocky Mountain Double had been configured as a B-train or if a Double drawbar (C-dolly) had been used, this collision may not have occurred.Triple Trailer combinations assembled with “A” dollies also suffer from the same roll couplingdeficiency.

The dynamics of the Rocky Mountain Double are passive enough not to warrant the use of C-dollies for most operating conditions.

4.6.2 Animal CollisionsThe 5 collisions with animals accounted for 42% of all Rocky Mountain Double collisions. Ofthe animal collisions, 80% occurred on 2-lane highways. None occurred within the urban areas.

4.6.3 Adverse ConditionsAdverse conditions (weather and road surface) existed in 67% (8 of the 12) Rocky MountainDouble collisions. Given the fact that none of the adverse conditions collisions occurred in anurban area, 73% occurred within the sub-network of 4-lane and 2-lane highways. Road surfacefactors occurred most frequently as a contributing factor in both 4-lane and 2-lane RockyMountain Double collision incidents. Weather related conditions were also a frequent factor inboth 4-lane and 2-lane collisions.



26

Only one Rocky Mountain Double collision was not related to adverse conditions when lowimpact animal incidents were factored out. In this case, a non-LCV truck where alcohol wasinvolved sideswiped the LCV in an urban area. There were no reported collisions attributed toroad surface conditions in the urban areas for Rocky Mountain Doubles.

4.6.4 Road ClassThe Rocky Mountain Double is the only LCV that is permitted to travel on selected 2-lanehighways (except Highway 1A east of Calgary, where Turnpike Doubles and Triples are alsopermitted to access the city). Of the 12 Rocky Mountain Double collisions 58 % (7) occurred on2-lane highways, 57% of these 2-lane incidents were animal strikes. Adverse conditions oranimals were primary factors in all of the collisions that occurred on the 2-lane highway system.Only one collision involving a Rocky Mountain Double occurred within an urban area.

Table 11 illustrates that the collision rate for Rocky Mountain Doubles is 53% higher on the 2-lane system than the 4-lane system. However if collisions with animals are excluded, the RockyMountain Double collision rate is 35% lower on the 2-lane system than the 4-lane system. Thisis an important finding because it indicates that if collisions with animals are discounted (thesetend to be low risk collisions) the Rocky Mountain Double has a superior collision record on the2-lane undivided roads. Such a finding is in direct contradiction with the view that collision riskis higher on 2-lane undivided roads than 4-lane divided roads. The reason for this apparentdiscrepancy may be driver related.

Table 11. Rocky Mountain Double Collision Rate by Road TypeRoadClass

Distance-traveled

Number ofCollisions

Collision Rate/100,000,000

km

Number ofCollisionsExcludingAnimals

Collision RateExcludingAnimals

/100,000,000 km2-laneundivided

56,879,273 7 12.31 3 5.27

4-lanedivided

49,816,273 4 8.03 3 6.02

Totals 106,695,909 11 10.31 6 5.62Note: The numbers represent the number of collisions that occurred on the sub-network

4.7 Collisions Involving Turnpike DoublesTable 12 lists the contributing factors for the 30 incidents (sub-network and urban areas)involving Turnpike Doubles that were identified on the collision report forms. The numberscontained in the table are small and generalizations based on these numbers may not providereliable conclusions. There were no incidents involving configuration factors, mechanicalproblems, or animals. As with Rocky Mountain Doubles, road surface condition followed byweather were the most frequent contributing factors on 4-lane highways and urban roads.



27

Table 12. Collisions Involving Turnpike Doubles 1995-1998

Collision LocationContributing Factor4-Lane 2-Lane Urban*

Configuration related 0 0 2Animal 3 0 0Weather (visibility, wind) 4 0 1Road surface (icy, wet etc) 5 0 3Mechanical 0 0 0Other 0 0 0* Includes 2-lane access routesNote: There may be more than one contributing factor to collisionshence the columns are not to be added together.

4.7.1 ConfigurationOf the total 30 collisions, involving Turnpike Doubles (including collisions in urban areas), 33%of the collisions occurred within cities. Of these, 90% occurred at intersections. Of the 10collisions that occurred in the urban area, only one was judged to be the fault of an LCV.Slippery road surface conditions were present in 40% (4 out of 10) of the Turnpike Doublecollisions that occurred in the city. There were no Turnpike Double collisions that could beattributed to vehicle dynamic factors.

Two of the collisions that occurred in the city may have been associated with vehicle offtracking, which is related to vehicle length. Insufficient information was available to definitivelyresolve this question.

4.7.2 Animal CollisionsOnly 3 out of 30 or 10% of the total Turnpike Double collisions involved collisions withanimals. All of the collisions with animals occurred on 4-lane divided highways. Therefore,they accounted for 15% of the incidents on the sub-network. Turnpike Doubles rarely travel on2-lane roads.

4.7.3 Adverse ConditionsAdverse conditions (weather and road) were present in 43% (9 out of 30) of the total TurnpikeDouble collisions. On 4-lane highways outside of urban areas, 45% of the collisions occurredunder adverse conditions. Road surface factors and adverse weather conditions were a frequentcontributing factor to Turnpike Double collision incidents in both the sub-network and urbanareas. This is significant because Turnpike Doubles were involved in 56% of the total LCVcollision incidents.



28

4.8 Collisions Involving TriplesTable 13 lists the contributing factors for the 11 incidents (sub-network and urban areas)involving Triples that were identified on the collision report forms as factors in the incident.There were no collisions where weather was identified as a contributing factor. Road surfacefactors including, icy, wet, and contaminated road surfaces were the most frequent contributingfactors and these were distributed over all collision locations.

Table 13. Collisions Involving Triples 1995-1998

Collision LocationContributing Factor4-Lane 2-Lane Urban*

Configuration related 2 1 0Animal 0 1 0Weather (visibility, wind) 0 0 0Road surface (icy, wet etc) 1 1 1Mechanical 0 1 0Other 0 0 5* Includes 2-lane access routesNote: There may be more than one contributing factor to a collisionhence the columns are not to be added together.

4.8.1 ConfigurationOf the 11 collisions involving Triples, including the urban areas, it is probable that 27% (3) ofcollisions were related to the configuration design. Two incidents occurred on the sub-networkand one occurred on a 2-lane highway. In both cases, a trailer became unstable, one because ofunexpected braking and the other because of an avoidance maneuver. These collisions may havebeen preventable by using the B-configuration or Double Drawbar dollies (C-dollies). Thesespecial configurations are more stable than A-train configurations particularly when shortertrailers are used. This finding was well documented in the 1986 Canadian study entitled“Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study” (RTAC) where the Triple-Trailer B and C-trains werefound to be approximately 300% more stable than Triple-Trailer A-trains. The findings from thestudy have been confirmed through experience by the province of Saskatchewan. The B-train orC-dolly systems reduce the number of articulation points in a given vehicle and they also couplethe trailers in roll. These design changes produce a significant improvement in vehicle dynamicstability.



29

In addition to the two previous configuration-related collisions involving Triples, there was alsoa fifth wheel failure on the lead dolly that occurred on a 4-lane section of highway. Triple A-trains use more fifth wheels and hitch points than any other LCV configuration. Therefore, theprobability of a collision involving a fifth wheel failure will be slightly greater than other LCVconfigurations. It must be noted that if the three trailers of the Triple were reconfigured as threeseparate Tractor Semi Trailer units, the risk of fifth wheel failure would remain the same becausethree fifth wheels would still be required. Despite this observation, fifth wheel failures are veryrare (sufficiently rare that no statistics of fifth wheel failures could be found) and the real risk ofadditional fifth wheel failures on Triples remains very low.

Collisions occurring at a city intersection within the urban areas accounted for 45%, (5 out of11), of all Triple collisions. The Triple was at fault in 2 of these incidents as the result of rear-ending another vehicle. However, 3 incidents involved errors by other vehicles.

4.8.2 Animal CollisionsOf the total number of Triple LCV configuration collisions (11), only one involved a collisionwith an animal and this collision occurred on a 2-lane highway 1.5km west of the Niton Junctionon Highway 16.

4.8.3 Adverse ConditionsAdverse road surface conditions, including icy road surfaces and loose gravel, were factors in27% (3 out of 11) of the total Triple LCV collisions. Road surface conditions may have beenpresent on 1 urban incident (20%) and were present in 2 (33%) of sub-network incidents.

4.9 Summary of Long Combination Vehicle CollisionsTable 14 summarizes the contributing factors for all 53 LVC combination incidents; (37incidents within the sub-network and 16 incidents in an urban area.) Table 15 reveals that roadsurface factors, animal impact and weather were the most frequent contributing factors in allLCV incidents. The data also indicates that “other” factors (such as vehicles disobeying trafficsignals at intersections) were the most frequently cited contribution to urban LCV collisionincidents. This was followed by road surface factors and configuration related incidents. Theanalysis determined that LCVs were not at fault in any of the fatal or major injury collisionswithin the entire network. There were three fatal collisions out of the total number of collisionsinvolving LCVs.



30

Table 14. Collisions Involving All LCV Collisions 1995-1998Collision Location

Sub-NetworkContributing Factor

4-Lane 2-Lane Urban* OverallRoad surface 8 5 4 17Animal 4 5 0 9Weather 5 2 1 8Configuration Related 3 1 2 6Intersection 0 0 6 6Mechanical 0 1 0 1* Includes 2-lane access routesNote: There may be more than one contributing factor to a collision hence thecolumns are not to be added together

Table 15. Contributing Factors to LCV Collisions 1995-1998Overall Study

ResultsSub-Network Urban Areas Frequency

53 Collisions 37 Collisions 16 CollisionsRoad Surface Road Surface Intersection

Animal Animal Road SurfaceWeather Weather Configuration related

Intersection Configuration WeatherConfiguration related Mechanical Mechanical

Mechanical Other Animal

High

Medium

LowNote: There may be more than one contributing factor to a collision.

There were two LCV collision incidents that occurred during overtaking maneuvers on 4-lanedivided roads. One case involved a Tractor Semi-Trailer overtaking an LCV. Snow blowing offthe passing Tractor Semi-Trailer obscured the vision of a Passenger Vehicle. The PassengerVehicle then collided with the LCV. This is a common problem with large vehicles operatingduring the winter months. As the truck gains speed, aerodynamic forces disturb snow, which hasaccumulated on top of the trailer resulting in a localized whiteout, which can affect vehicles inthe immediate traffic stream. The unexpected loss of vision can result in loss of directionalreference. The second incident also occurred on a 4-lane divided highway and resulted in aPickup Truck losing control while being passed by an LCV. The collision report form indicatedthat the LCV was driving properly and that the other vehicle lost control due to slippery roadconditions.



31

It is important to note that this study’s analysis of contributing factors to individual collisionsreviewed only LCVs. As such, there may be a circumstance in which an LCV was involved in anovertaking or passing maneuver and this was a contributing factor in the collision of a non-LCVvehicle type. Given the fact that the purpose of this study was to review contributing factors toLCV collisions, analysis of the contributing factors to non-LCVs was considered outside thescope of this study.The number, type and frequency of collisions for the highway network and urban locations aresomewhat different. For example, Rocky Mountain Doubles were involved in approximately30% of the sub-network incidents but only 6% of the urban collisions. It should be noted thatTriples were involved in approximately 8% of sub-network highway incidents but over 31% ofthe urban collisions investigated. There does not appear to be a vehicle length related issueaffecting LCV collisions within the urban area. All of the incidents involving Triples in theurban area (five in total) occurred at intersections. Three involved errors by other non-LCVvehicles including one disobeyed traffic signal, two were the fault of the LCV and only onecollision had road condition as a contributing factor. Apart from the fact that all Triple LCVcollisions occurred at intersections, there does not appear to be any single causal factor related tovehicle configuration that dominates within the urban area.

Turnpike Doubles also experienced a significant number of collisions within the urban area. Ofthe ten collisions, eight were the fault of other vehicles including three disobeyed traffic signals.Four of the collisions involved road conditions as contributing factors. The urban area doeshowever present a higher risk to all vehicle types by virtue of the large number of intersectingroadways and road access opportunities, as well as high traffic density.

5. Long Combination Vehicle Operational ConsiderationsLCVs operate under a special permit program governed by strict operating conditions (seeAppendix C). The structure and enforcement mechanisms of the policy engender a level safetyconsciousness, which far exceeds that found in other vehicle classes. For example, it requiresthat operators be trained to meet and maintain the requirements outlined in the CanadianTrucking Alliance’s “ Longer Combination Vehicles Driver’s Manual.”

Drivers must obtain an annual certificate verifying that they are in compliance with the followingrequirements. The driver:

1. Holds a valid Class 1 driver’s license or equivalent.2. Has passed a recognized air brake course or has an air endorsement.3. Has a minimum of 24 months or 150,000 km of driving experience with articulated

vehicles.4. Has passed a recognized driver’s medical examination within the past 24 months.5. Has passed a Professional Driver Improvement Course within the past 48 months.6. Has passed the Canadian Trucking Alliance’s “Longer Combination Vehicles Driver

Training Course.”



32

7. The driver’s abstract, dated not more than one month prior to the issue date of theDrivers Certificate, must show no driving-related criminal code convictions in theprior 36 months; no more than 2 moving violations in the prior 12 months; and nomore than 3 moving violations in the prior 36 months. The date of conviction and thecurrent date will be the dates used to determine time periods.

8. In the past 12 months the driver has been instructed on all current regulations, permitconditions and issues covering the operation of LCVs.

The permit conditions also place controls on where LCVs can operate including hours ofoperation (time of day), vehicle dimensions such as wheelbase, hitch offset and dolly drawbarlength. The policy also contains operational requirements such as adverse weather restrictions,requirements that the vehicles track properly and do not sway, and requirements that vehicles donot cross opposing lanes of traffic unless absolutely necessary.

5.1 Vehicle Length and MassAs shown in Table 16 and Figure 11, LCV length and gross vehicle weight (GVW) is tightlycontrolled by the Alberta Infrastructure LCV permit, entitled “Conditions Governing theOperation of Long Combination Vehicles in Alberta.” The allowable GVW of a RockyMountain Double is dependent on the coupling details of the first and second trailer. The A-train connection represents the traditional way the trailers are coupled together. The B-train andC-train connections provide roll coupling and eliminate one point of articulation per coupledtrailer. These features greatly improve vehicle stability and in recognition of this, the allowableGVW of the Rocky Mountain Double is dependent on the coupling system.

Table 16. LCV Maximum Length & Gross Vehicle Weight Limits

Configuration Type OverallLength

Maximum GrossVehicle Weight

Rocky Mountain Double A-train 31 m 53,500 kgRocky Mountain Double B-train 31 m 62,500 kgRocky Mountain Double C-train 31 m 60,500 kgTurnpike Double A-train 37 m 62,500 kgTurnpike Double A-train 37 m 62,500 kgTurnpike Double A-train 37 m 62,500 kgTriples A-train 35 m 53,500 kgTriples B-train 35 m 53,500 kgTriples C-train 35 m 53,500 kg



33

Figure 11: Illustrations of Typical EEMV Configurations

Triples

35 m maximum

31 m maximum

5.2 Adverse Weather Restrictions1. The LCV policy states that LCVs “shall not operate during adverse weather or driving

conditions (including but not limited to rain, snow, sleet, ice, smoke, fog or other conditions)which:

a. Obscure or impede the driver’s ability to drive in a safe manner, or

b. Prevent the driver from driving with reasonable consideration for the safety of personsusing the highway. The company is required to make a reasonable effort to determine thedriving conditions on the route. Vehicles must not be dispatched when adverseconditions are known to be present on the route. Drivers encountering unexpectedadverse conditions must stop at the next safe location (or as directed by an authorizedAlberta Infrastructure staff member or a peace officer) and wait for the adverseconditions to abate.”

Rocky Mountain Doubles

37 m maximum

Turnpike Doubles



34

5.3 Summary of Long Combination Vehicle Operational Considerations This study revealed that the LCV fleet in Alberta has a superior safety record when compared toother ground transportation vehicles. Within the LCV fleet, there are differences in collisionrates by configuration type. However a thorough examination of collision details found nosignificant link to vehicle design factors such as length or mass. The examination did find that ifTriples were configured as B-trains or C-trains, their safety performance would likely beimproved. From the collision analysis, of the three LCV classes, Rocky Mountain Doublesrepresent the safest road transport mode. This analysis clearly demonstrates that LCVs operating under the current permits represent asignificant improvement in transport safety when compared with the general truck transport fleet.It is the opinion of the author that a significant component of this benefit can be attributed to theinfluence of Alberta Infrastructure’s permit conditions governing the operation of LCVs.Therefore, the contents of the LCV permit represent a practical tool for improving transportsafety and this policy should be viewed as an essential element of the LCV program.

6. Safety Performance ConclusionsThis study concluded that Alberta Infrastructure’s permit conditions governing the operation ofLCVs was found to be a vital influencing factor in the creation of a safe operating environmentin Alberta. The effective conditions include, selective routing, restrictions on vehicle speed,restricted time of day operation, enhanced driver qualification requirements and operatingrestrictions for adverse road and weather conditions. The particular elements, including roadtype, driver competence, vehicle speed and adverse weather conditions have been found to besignificant factors in collision causation.

This study of vehicle safety specifically demonstrated that:

1. LCVs have the lowest collision rate of all vehicle classes.

2. Rocky Mountain Doubles were found to have the best safety performance of all LCVconfigurations. The performance of the Rocky Mountain Double was better than anyother vehicle even though they are permitted on 2-lane highways.

3. The safety performance of the Rocky Mountain Double was found to be slightly better on2-lane undivided highways than 4-lane highways when animal strikes were omitted.



35

4. Within the urban area, Turnpike Doubles have a significantly larger number of collisionsthan the other LCV configurations. In reviewing collisions in urban areas it is difficult toacquire reliable data for analyzing the collisions per kilometres traveled by vehicle type.Consequently, the study did not have sufficient information to determine the urbancollision rate for any of the LCVs. Therefore, comparative safety performance of LCVswithin urban areas remains largely unknown.

5. Triple Trailer LCVs have a significantly higher collision rate than Rocky MountainDoubles. The Triple Trailer LCV safety performance can be improved if coupled in theB-train or C-train configuration.

6. Adverse conditions (weather and road surface) accounted for 42% of all LCV collisions.This point proves the significance of weather and road surface conditions as a frequentcontributing factor on the safety performance of all vehicles including LCV operations.


I


7. APPENDICES

March 30, 2001 Final Report


II

7.1 Appendix A: Vehicle Involvement by Collision

There are two separate methods that may be used to analyze collision data. The collisionrate relationships are defined in the following equations:

Equation A

typehicleby that ve traveledkilometers Total typeclegiven vehi a involving collisions ofNumber collisionby t involvemen Vehicle =

Equation B

typehicleby that ve traveledkilometers Totalcollisionsin involved given type a of vehiclesofNumber typeby vehicleCollision =

Equation A is based upon vehicle involvement by collision. In this analysis, “thecollision” is the primary investigative factor and is used in the numerator of the collisionrate equation. The number of collisions is determined and the vehicle types involved inthe collision are recorded.

When examining vehicle involvement, a collision involving two vehicles of the sametype would only register one vehicle type. Therefore if there were 100 collisionsinvolving 200 private vehicles, the number of collisions involving private vehicles wouldbe recorded as 100. The analysis method is known as “Vehicle Involvement byCollision.”

Equation B is the second method, which can be used to analyze the data. It is based uponthe type of vehicle involved in an incident. In this analysis, “the vehicle involved in thecollision” is the primary investigative factor therefore the “total” number of vehiclesinvolved in the collisions is known. Thus, the total number of vehicles involved is usedin the numerator of this form of the collision exposure rate equation. When examiningvehicle involvement, the number of all vehicles involved in the collisions is recorded. Ifthere are 100 collisions involving 200 private vehicles, the number of vehicles involvedin the collisions will be counted as 200. This method is known as “Collisions by VehicleType.”



III

Appendix A Table A: Vehicle Involvement by Collision(Within the Sub-Network 1995-98)

Vehicle Type TotalCollisions

Fatal Injury PDO Total Distance-traveled(100 million km)

Unit Truck 688 13 126 549 3.820Tractor Semi 879 34 239 606 11.544Multi Trailer 406 19 119 268 4.031Rocky Mountain 11 0 2 9 1.067Turnpike Doubles 20 2 5 13 1.186Triples 6 0 2 4 0.090Personal Vehicles 11,800 175 2,434 9,191 217.873Total Number ofCollisions

13,810 243 2,927 10,640 239.609

All LCV 37 2 9 26 2.342Note (1): PDO stands for Property Damage Only collisions

Note (2): In this analysis, collisions involving two or more vehicles of the same type were counted as oneincident, that is, a collision involving three personal vehicles would be registered as one event. A collisioninvolving two different vehicle types would be registered as two events.

Appendix A Table B: Collision Exposure Rate Vehicle Involvement by Collision(Within the Sub-Network 1995-98)

Per 100 million km traveledVehicle Type Total

CollisionsFatal Injury PDO

Unit Truck 180.11 3.40 34.30 143.73Tractor Semi 75.88 2.95 20.70 52.50Multi Trailer 100.7 4.71 29.52 66.49Rocky Mountain 10.31 0 1.87 8.43Turnpike Doubles 16.87 1.69 4.22 10.96Triples 67.04 0 22.34 44.6Personal Vehicles 54.16 0.80 11.17 42.19Total Number ofCollisions

57.63 1.02 12.22 44.41

All LCV 15.80 0.85 3.84 11.10Note (1): PDO stands for Property Damage Only collisions

Note (2): In this analysis, collisions involving two or more vehicles of the same type were counted as oneincident, that is, a collision involving two or more personal vehicles would be registered as one event. Acollision involving two different vehicle types would be registered as two events.



IV

Appendix A Table C: Error Sensitivity of Vehicle Involvement by Collision(Within the Sub-Network 1995-98)

Per 100 million km traveledVehicle Type Collision Rate

Error Estimate RangeEstimated

ErrorLow Calculated

RateHigh

Unit Truck + 10% 162 180 198Tractor Semi + 10% 68 76 83Multi Trailer + 10% 96 100 106Rocky Mountain + 10% 9 10 11Turnpike Doubles + 10% 15 17 19Triples + 10% 60 67 74Personal Vehicles + 10% 51 54 57Total Number ofCollisions

+ 10% 55 58 60

All LCV +10% 14 16 17Note (1): PDO stands for Property Damage Only collisions

Note (2): In this analysis, collisions involving two or more vehicles of the same type were counted as oneincident, that is, a collision involving three personal vehicles would be registered as one event. A collisioninvolving two different vehicle types would be registered as two events.



V

Table D detailed below, reveals the annual average collisions exposure rates of vehicleinvolvement by collision.

Appendix A Table D: Annual Average Collisions Exposure of Vehicle Involvementby Collision

(Within the Sub-Network 1995-98)Per 100 million km traveled

Vehicle Type Collision RateError Estimate Range

EstimatedError

Low CalculatedRate

High


All LCV + 10% 4 4 4Note (2): In this analysis, collisions involving two or more vehicles of the same type were counted as oneincident, that is, a collision involving three personal vehicles would be registered as one event. A collisioninvolving two different vehicle types would be registered as two events.



VI

7.2 Appendix B: Traffic Control Section

14:06 14:0814:04

14.3

6

0.0025.0

6

36:0

4

24.73

ALBERTA INFRASTRUCTUREHIGHWAY CONTROLSECTION NUMBER

Start of ControlSectIon 14:06

TYPICAL HIGHWAY CONTROL SECTION ON LCV SUB-NETWORK

NOTE: DISTANCES USED FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

Traffic Control Section

15 Km 32 Km 12 Km

(Turning Movement)

A B C

There are 345 Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) traffic-counting stations in Alberta.219 of these ATR were within the LCV sub-network. ATRs operate 24 hours a day and365/366 days a year. ATRs only record the number of vehicles by hour and direction.All sites use magnetic induction loops imbedded in the road surface to detect traffic.These recorders are situated on highway Control Sections.



VII

A manual traffic study consisting of observation and recording of vehicle turningmovements takes place at intersections (Traffic Control Sections). Each study runs from8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a single day and the study is done once every five years. Thesurveyors make visual observations and record the number of vehicles by movement andvehicle type. The five vehicle classifications are Passenger Vehicles, RecreationalVehicles, Buses, Single Unit Trucks and Tractor-Trailers. This method was used togenerate the total traffic volume.

The National Road Side Survey used highway weigh scale locations for the site of their24-hour per day, one-week visual traffic observation and recording study. This methodwas used to generate the type of vehicles (i.e. those that were commercial).

7.3 Appendix C: The Data Collection Form for Truck Counts (1999 CCMTASurvey)

Source : Alberta Infrastructure, Transportation Policy & Economic Analysis Branch



VIII

7.4 Appendix D: Estimated LCV Movements On Sub-Network by Year*1998 EEMV Activity EEMV Daily Movements EEMV Annual MovementsArea Highway Range Distance Turnpike Rocky Triples Turnpike Rocky TriplesArea 1: Hwy 4 Coutts to Lethbridge 104.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0 1,014 0Area 2: Hwy 3 Crowsnest Pass to Jct Hwy 2 101.1 0.6 29.4 0.0 219 10,749 0Area 3: Hwy 3 Jct Hwy 2 to Lethbridge & 51.1 10.3 5.1 0.5 3,742 1,871 170

Hwy 2 Jct Hwy 3 to Calgary & 157.8 10.9 34.6 0.5 3,961 12,620 170Hwy 1 Banff Park Gates to Calgary 197.0 34.6 17.3 1.6 12,615 6,308 573

Area 4: Hwy 1 Calgary to Alberta/Sask border 291.0 37.8 34.2 4.7 13,782 12,490 1,723Area 5: Hwy 2 Calgary to Red Deer 152.0 147.6 33.7 8.4 53,885 12,317 3,079Area 6: Hwy 2 Red Deer to Edmonton 146.1 207.1 52.5 19.3 75,582 19,148 7,054Area 7: Hwy 16 Jasper Park Gates to Edmonton 385.1 30.6 5.5 0.0 11,151 2,007 0Area 8: Hwy 16 Edmonton to Alberta/Sask border 229.0 20.8 18.9 2.6 7,604 6,891 950Area 9: Hwy 43 Alberta/BC border to Gr. Prairie 88.9 0.0 39.3 0.7 0 14,355 252

Hwy 43 Grande Prairie to Valleyview 95.0 0.0 39.3 0.7 0 14,355 252Hwy 43 Valleyview to Jct Hwy 16 287.6 0.0 62.1 0.7 0 22,667 252

Area 10: Hwy 49: Jct Hwy 43 to Jct Hwy 2 & 91.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0 8,311 0Hwy 2: Jct Hwy 49 to Jct Hwy 35 & 82.9 0.0 22.8 0.0 0 8,311 0Hwy 35: Jct Hwy 2 to Alberta/NWT border 477.4 0.0 19.8 0.0 0 7,227 0

Total 500.1 440.1 39.7 182,541 160,641 14,475

1997 EEMV Activity EEMV Daily Movements EEMV Annual MovementsArea Highway Range Distance Turnpike Rocky Triples Turnpike Rocky TriplesArea 1: Hwy 4 Coutts to Lethbridge 104.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0 372 0Area 2: Hwy 3 Crowsnest Pass to Jct Hwy 2 101.1 0.4 20.0 0.0 149 7,297 0Area 3: Hwy 3 Jct Hwy 2 to Lethbridge & 51.1 9.8 4.9 0.4 3,581 1,791 163





Total 456.7 399.1 36.1 166,706 145,678 13,161

1996 EEMV Activity EEMV Daily Movements EEMV Annual MovementsArea Highway Range Distance Turnpike Rocky Triples Turnpike Rocky TriplesArea 1: Hwy 4 Coutts to Lethbridge 104.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0 350 0Area 2: Hwy 3 Crowsnest Pass to Jct Hwy 2 101.1 0.4 18.9 0.0 141 6,904 0Area 3: Hwy 3 Jct Hwy 2 to Lethbridge & 51.1 9.1 4.5 0.4 3,316 1,658 151





Total 424.1 374.9 33.4 154,785 136,834 12,175



IX

Weekly Vehicle Classification Counts – By Survey Location

National Roadside Survey/Effects of Longer Combination Vehicles in Alberta

Location Direction Total NRS Bus Single Tractor Truck Legal Length EEMVVehicles Vehicles Truck Only 1 Trailer Tractor Tractor Turnpike Rocky Tractor

1 Trailer 2 Trailers Doubles Doubles TriplesGrimshaw N&S 12,637 1,232 16 154 222 115 238 362 0 125 0Beaverlodge N&S 19610 2,619 52 835 58 183 1090 289 0 111 1Hinton E 17958 2,085 105 129 8 83 1072 581 90 17 0Leduc S 83223 7,928 72 776 195 860 3796 1379 628 162 60Balzac N 176306 10,466 332 2077 302 404 4772 1770 624 142 43Jumping Pound E 74885 5,249 81 814 57 137 2937 966 167 86 4Strathmore E 51414 5,429 97 886 135 106 3219 656 163 147 20Burmis E 15974 2,533 40 355 40 256 1082 681 1 78 0Coutts N&S 38881 3,971 41 118 49 65 3292 386 0 20 0Grimshaw % of All Traffic: 0.13% 1.22% 1.76% 0.91% 1.88% 2.86% 0.00% 0.99% 0.00%Beaverlodge % of All Traffic: 0.27% 4.26% 0.30% 0.93% 5.56% 1.47% 0.00% 0.57% 0.01%Hinton % of All Traffic: 0.58% 0.72% 0.04% 0.46% 5.97% 3.24% 0.50% 0.09% 0.00%Leduc % of All Traffic: 0.09% 0.93% 0.23% 1.03% 4.56% 1.66% 0.75% 0.19% 0.07%Balzac % of All Traffic: 0.19% 1.18% 0.17% 0.23% 2.71% 1.00% 0.35% 0.08% 0.02%Jumping Pound % of All Traffic: 0.11% 1.09% 0.08% 0.18% 3.92% 1.29% 0.22% 0.11% 0.01%Strathmore % of All Traffic: 0.19% 1.72% 0.26% 0.21% 6.26% 1.28% 0.32% 0.29% 0.04%Burmis % of All Traffic: 0.25% 2.22% 0.25% 1.60% 6.77% 4.26% 0.01% 0.49% 0.00%Coutts % of All Traffic: 0.11% 0.30% 0.13% 0.17% 8.47% 0.99% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00%

Source: Alberta Infrastructure, Transportation Policy & Economic Analysis Branch

7.5 Appendix E: Conditions Governing the Operation of Energy EfficientMotor Vehicles in Alberta Transport Engineering Branch

7.5.1 Driver RequirementsOctober 20, 1999The following conditions shall apply to the operation of Energy Efficient Motor Vehicles(EEMVs), including Triple Trailer, Turnpike Double and/or Rocky Mountain Doubles.Note that these vehicles may also be referred to as LCVs or ELVs. Also a special permitis required to operate EEMVs in Alberta and the conditions in this document are inaddition to those printed on the special permit. In the case of conflict, the conditionsprinted on the special permit shall take precedence.



X

General Provisions:

THAT the company and/or permittee shall, upon request of any authorized employee ofAlberta Infrastructure or any peace officer, allow and assist such employee or peaceofficer to make any inspection, test, examination or inquiry as such member may wish tomake in regard to the operation of these trailer combinations.

THAT the company undertake and assume full responsibility for the operation of thosetrailer combinations and will indemnify and save harmless Alberta Infrastructure, itsofficers and employees, from and against all actions, causes of actions, claims anddemands which may arise as a result of these operations.

THAT the company shall abide by the routes, vehicle dimensions, equipment andconditions specified on, attached to or referred to by the permits as well as all applicablelegislation unless specifically exempted on the permit or permit attachments.

THAT the company shall carry a copy of the appropriate permit in each power unit.

THAT, upon request, the company will supply to Transport Engineering Branch, AlbertaInfrastructure, any reasonable statistics related to EEMV operations.

THAT the company will submit to Transport Engineering Branch, Alberta Infrastructure(phone 403-340-5189 or fax 403-340-5092) the police report number for any reportablecollision involving an EEMV within one week of the date of occurrence.

THAT the company ensure, and be able to provide proof, that their drivers and drivertrainers meet and maintain the requirements outlined in the Canadian Trucking Alliance’s“Longer Combination Vehicle Driver’s and/or Instructors Manual.”

THAT the carrier is responsible to issue an annual EEMV Driver’s Certificate. TheDriver’s Certificate is valid for a period of 12 months after the date of issue and must bein the possession of the driver at all times when operating an EEMV. Prior to issuing anEEMV Driver’s Certificate, the carrier must ensure that the driver meets the followingqualifications:

Holds a valid Class 1 driver’s license or equivalent.Has passed a recognized air brake course or has an air endorsement.Has a minimum of 24 months or 150,000 km of driving experience with articulatedvehicles.Has passed a recognized driver’s medical examination within the past 24 months.Has passed a Professional Driver Improvement Course within the past 48 months.Has passed the Canadian Trucking Alliance’s “Longer Combination Vehicles DriverTraining Course.”



XI

The driver’s abstract, dated not more than one month prior to the issue date of the DriversCertificate, must show no driving-related criminal code convictions in the prior 36months; no more than 2 moving violations in the prior 12 months; and no more than 3moving violations in the prior 36 months. The date of conviction and the current datewill be the dates used to determine time periods.In the past 12 months the driver has been instructed on all current regulations, permitconditions and issues covering the operation of EEMVs.

Upon request, the company must be able to produce all documents to support the driver’squalifications.Driver’s Certificates issued by other jurisdictions, which meet or exceed the Albertarequirements, will be accepted as valid for the term of this agreement.

Instructor QualificationsThe instructor must be certified as a Driver Trainer in their home jurisdiction and bequalified to instruct the CTA Longer Combination Vehicle Driver Training Course.

Equipment RequirementsThe equipment must carry a valid CVIP decal or recognized equivalent.All trucks must feature a maximum gross weight to power ratio of 160 kg per horsepower(120 kg/kW).All equipment used in extended length combinations shall be equipped with brakes thatmeet CMVSS 121 Standards. Converter dollies do not require spring brakes.

The rear axle group of the power unit and all axle groups of the trailers and convertersmust be equipped with mud flaps or splash guards that are constructed to ensure that theyremain in a rigid downward position at all times. All mud flaps or splashguards shall bemounted behind the wheels at a distance not exceeding 25.0 cm to the rear of the wheels.

The trailers of the combination shall be joined together by means of no-slack pintlehook(s), equipped with an air or hydraulic ram. The no-slack ram is to be incorporated ineither the pintle hook or the pintle hook eye of the coupling apparatus.



XII

7.5.2 Operational RequirementsWhere a route falls within a city boundary, the company is responsible for obtainingpermission from cities to operate extended length combinations into and out of such citiesin accordance with the routes and conditions assigned by the city.

Any breakup or makeup of extended length combination units must be done off publicroadways on private property or as directed by an authorized Alberta Infrastructure staffmember or a peace officer.EEMVs shall not operate during adverse weather or driving conditions (including but notlimited to rain, snow, sleet, ice, smoke, fog or other conditions) which:• Obscure or impede the driver’s ability to drive in a safe manner, or• Prevent the driver from driving with reasonable consideration for the safety of

persons using the highway.

The company is required to make a reasonable effort to determine the driving conditionson the route. Vehicles must not be dispatched when adverse conditions are known to bepresent on the route. Drivers encountering unexpected adverse conditions must stop atthe next safe location (or as directed by an authorized Alberta Infrastructure staff memberor a peace officer) and wait for the adverse conditions to abate.

The vehicles in a combination shall be so loaded and coupled together as to ensure thatany such combination traveling on a level, smooth, paved surface will follow in the pathof the towing vehicle without shifting, swerving, or swaying from side to side over 10 cmto each side of the path of the towing vehicle when it is moving in a straight line.

• Drivers shall avoid crossing opposing lanes of traffic unless absolutely necessary.• Maximum speed shall be the lesser of 100 km/h or the posted speed limit.

This permit cannot be combined with any other permit for overwidth, overheight,overhang, or overweight.

Hours of OperationOperation will be allowed 24 hours per day except in the following cases:

All Highways:Movement will NOT be allowed:• after 4:00pm on December 24th and December 31st

• at anytime on December 25th, 26th and January 1st



XIII

On Multi-lane Highways:Within 40 km of the corporate boundaries of the cities of Calgary and Edmonton:Movement will NOT be allowed:

• Traveling OUTBOUND from 4:00pm to 8:00pm on Fridays• Travelling INBOUND from 4:00pm to 8:00pm on Sundays• When a statutory holiday falls on a Friday, movement will NOT be allowed

traveling OUTBOUND from 4:00pm to 8:00pm on the preceding Thursday.• When a statutory holiday falls on a Monday, movement will NOT be allowed

traveling INBOUND from 4:00pm to 8:00pm on the Monday.

On 2-lane Highways• a) Movement will NOT be allowed from 4:00pm to 8:00pm on Fridays and from

4:00pm to 8:00pm on Sundays• b) When a statutory holiday falls on a Friday, movement will NOT be allowed

from 4:00pm to 8:00pm on the preceding Thursday.• c) When a statutory holiday falls on a Monday, movement will NOT be allowed

from 4:00pm to 8:00pm on the Monday.NOTE: a, b and c above do not apply to highway 35 from the southern corporate townlimits of High Level to the NWT border.



XIV

In addition to, a, b & c, movement will NOT be allowed on individual 2-lane highwaysas follows:From the Tuesday following the Labour Day Weekend (September) to the Thursdaybefore the Victoria Day Weekend (May):

Highway Location Hours Days15 Edmonton to Jct. 21 8:00am to 7:00pm Mon – Fri

10:00am to 7:00pm Saturday12:00pm to 7:00pm Sunday

From the Friday before the Victoria Day Weekend (May) to the Tuesday following theLabour Day Weekend (September):

Highway Location Hours Days15 Edmonton to Jct. 21 7:00am to 11:00pm Mon – Fri

7:00am to 11:00pm Saturday10:00am to 10:00pm Sunday

3 AB/BC border to Jct. 22 12:00 to 5:00pm Fri & Sat22 Jct. 1 to Jct. 1A 1:00pm to 3:00pm Saturday

1:00pm to 8:00pm Sunday

Statutory Holidays(Excerpt from Public Vehicle Dimension and Weight Regulation, AR 127/98)“Statutory holiday” means:New Year’s Day, Family Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day,Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day and Christmas Day and December 26, or whenthat day falls on a Sunday or a Monday, then December 27.

Turnpike Double and Triple Trailer Routes:• All multi-lane highways with four or more driving lanes• Hwy. #1A from the Calgary City Limits east to Jct of Hwy. #1• Hwy. #11A from Hwy. #2 east to Gaetz Avenue, Red Deer, except between 7:00

a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.



XV

Extended Length Doubles Routes:• All multi-lane highways with four or more driving lanes• The following 2-lane highways:

Highway Section1A Calgary to Jct. 22

Jct. 1 (Chestermere) to CalgaryUSA boundary to Jct. 5Jct. 642 to Jct. 18Jct. 49 (West of Donnelly) to Jct. 43 (North of GrandePrairie)

2A Jct. 2 (Leduc) to Jct. 2 (near Morningside)

• All• USA boundary to Lethbridge• Jct. 2 to Lethbridge• Jct. 36 to Jct. 2• 11A Jct. 2 to Gaetz Avenue (Red Deer)• Jct. 2A to Camrose• Edmonton to Saskatchewan Border• Edmonton to Jct. 45 (South of Bruderheim)• West of Hinton to East Jasper Park Gates• Jct. 14 South to the Saskatchewan Border• Jct. 2 to Westlock• Jct. 1 to Jct. 1A• Jct. 2 to NWT border• Jct. 16 to BC border• Jct. 43 (Valleyview) to Jct. 2 (West of Donnelly)

Or additional routes as may be indicated on the permit.



XVI

7.5.3 Specific Conditions for Rocky Mountain DoublesThe following lists specific requirements for the equipment. Dimensions or weights,where not specifically listed, shall conform to the Alberta Public Vehicle Dimension andWeight Regulation (AR 127/98) for A, B or C trains.

PARAMETER LIMIT LIMIT LIMITA Converter B Converter C Converter

Overall Length Max 31 m Max 31 m Max 31 mTrailer OneLength (box length) Min 12.2 m Min 12.2 m Min 12.2 mWheelbase Max 12.5 m Max 14.0 m Max 12.5 mHitch Offset: *Trailer length 12.2 – 13.7 m Max 1.8 m n/a Max 1.8 mTrailer length > 13.7 m Max 2.8 m n/a Max 2.8 mConverter DollyDrawbar Length Max 4.65 m n/a Max 2.0 m**Max Number of Axles 2 n/a 1Trailer TwoLegal dimensionsOverall Gross Vehicle Weight Max 53,500 kg Max 62,500 kg Max 60,500 kg

Note: In all cases, the lead semi-trailer of the configuration must be heavier than the second trailer orsemi-trailer.

Trailer two may be used as the lead semi-trailer providing the following conditions aremet:Trailer two is heavier than trailer one; andOnly “B” or “C” converters will be allowed on any approved 2-lane highway.“A” converters will be allowed on all Turnpike/Triple Trailer routes.

• Tridem axle groups are very difficult to fit into A and C train lead trailers less than13.7 metres in length, because of the hitch offset requirements.

* Note that hitch offset is generally not a concern on B trains and tridem axle groups areeasily accommodated.** The 2.0 meter maximum drawbar length is applicable to “C” convertersmanufactured in 1993 or later, in accord with the compliance requirements to theCMVSS under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Canada.



XVII

7.5.4 Specific Conditions for Triple Trailer CombinationsThe following lists specific requirements for the equipment. Dimensions or weights,where not specifically listed, shall conform to the Alberta Public Vehicle Dimension andWeight Regulation (AR 127/98) for A, B or C trains.


Overall Length Max 35 m Max 35 m Max 35 mFirst Converter DollyDrawbar LengthMaximum number of axles

Max 4.65 m2

n/an/a

Max 2.0 m*1

Overall Gross Vehicle Weight 53,500 kg 53,500 kg 53,500 kgNote: In all cases, the lead semi-trailer of the configuration must be heavier than the second trailer orsemi-trailer and the third trailer or semi-trailer is the lightest.

The 2.0 meter maximum drawbar length is applicable to “C” converters manufactured in1993 or later in accord with the compliance requirements to the CMVSS under the MotorVehicle Safety Act, Canada.



XVIII

7.5.5 Specific Conditions for Turnpike DoublesThe following lists specific requirements for the equipment. Dimensions or weights,where not specifically listed, shall conform to the Alberta Public Vehicle Dimension andWeight Regulation (AR 127/98) for A, B or C trains.


Overall Length Max 37 m Max 37 m Max 37 mLead Semi-TrailerLength (box length) Min 12.2 m Min 12.2 m Min 12.2 mWheelbase Min 9.5 m n/a Min 9.5 m

Max 12.5 m Max 14.0 m Max 12.5 mHitch Offset: *Trailer length 12.2 m to 13.7 m Max 1.8 m n/a Max 1.8 mTrailer length > 13.7 m Max 2.8 m n/a Max 2.8 mConverter DollyDrawbar length Max 4.65 m n/a Max 2.0 m**Maximum number of axles 2 n/a 1Second Semi-Trailer or Full TrailerLength Min 12.2 m Min 12.2 m Min 12.2 mWheelbase Min 9.5 m Min 8.25 m Min 9.5 m

Max 12.5 m Max 11.5 m Max 12.5 mGross Vehicle Weight Max 62,500 kg Max 62,500 kg Max 62,500 kgMAXIMUM GROSS COMBINATIONWEIGHTS5 Axle 41,900 kg 40,700 kg 41,900 kg6 Axle 49,800 kg 48,600 kg 49,800 kg7 Axle 57,700 kg 56,500 kg 57,700 kg8 or more Axles 62,500 kg 62,500 kg 62,500 kg

Note: In all cases, the lead semi-trailer of the configuration must be heavier than the second trailer ofsemi-trailer.

Tridem axle groups are very difficult to fit into A and C-train lead trailers less than 13.7metres in length, because of the hitch-offset requirements. Note that hitch offset isgenerally not a concern on B-trains and tridem axle groups are easily accommodated.

Documents

LCV Safety Performance Report - Alberta · FINAL REPORT Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) Safety Performance in Alberta 1995 to 1998 John Woodrooffe Principal, Woodrooffe & Associates